DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 4-21, & 24-41 are currently pending on the application of which claims 1, 21, & 40 are amended and claims 2-3 & 22-23 are cancelled.
In view of the amendments to the claims, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
The previous art rejection is maintained as applicants remarks are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1, 21, & 40
Applicants argument is not persuasive because the photolytic material is not a required limitation of the claim, thus all limitations attributed to reactions of said material are not required by the claim. Since the prior art contains all relevant structure to perform such a reaction when such a photolytic material is provided it reads on the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that Han does not teach the reaction mechanism, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Secondly, Han also actually teaches such a photolytic material and such a reaction being performed, when read by one of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, Han indicates that a 185-254 nm [0076] is utilized with ozone water [0022, 0029]. A skilled artisan understands that when UV light of the specified wavelength reacts with ozone water, hydroxyl radicals are created through photolysis. Further, a skilled artisan also understands that such hydroxyl radicals reacts with ozone to form hydroperoxyl radicals.
Such a reactions between ozone water and UV light is known in the field by one of ordinary skill in the art. Although Han does not describe such a reaction as photolytic, a skilled artisan understands that it is such.
Applicant's third argument regarding the processing head is also unpersuasive. The figures and paragraphs cited clearly indicate that the head is movable (i.e., retractable vertically and distally) to the wafer. Applicant's argument to this end appears incomplete as it does not clearly indicate the rational as to why the cited elements do not meet the limitation beyond a conclusory statement.
Claims 4 & 26
Applicants argument to claims 4 & 26 are not persuasive. Funabashi and Han are related in the removal of resists using radicals. The usage of turbulent flow allows for an increase in the fluid reaches the substrate via thinning of a boundary layer. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect that such turbulent flow would also be beneficial to Han which also utilizes radicals for the removal of the resist as it suggest that radicals would be capable of reaching the substrate surface. The remaining portion of the argument is directed towards the reaction mechanism which has already been addressed in the response to the arguments of claim 1.
Claims 5
Applicants arguments to claim 5 is not persuasive. Kim and Nelson disclose benefits of utilizing laminar flow including increased diffusion, uniformity, and precision. A skilled artisan would reasonably be led to believe that Han could benefit from utilizing laminar flow to achieve more uniform ozone and radical distribution, while also increasing the amount of radicals in the fluid. The remaining portion of the argument is directed towards the reaction mechanism which has already been addressed in the response to the arguments of claim 1.
Claims 6 & 27
Applicants argument to claims 6 & 27 are not persuasive. Kwon discloses the use of deionized ozone water as a well-known fluid for the removal of a resist, as such it would be obvious for a skilled artisan to use such a fluid for the removal of a resist. The remaining portion of the argument is directed towards the reaction mechanism which has already been addressed in the response to the arguments of claim 1.
Claims 7 & 28
Applicant argues that the limitations to the photolytic material are limiting because claim 6 & 27 claim the photolytic material comprises ozonated deionized water. This argument is not persuasive, because the limitations of claims 6 & 27 directed towards the photolytic material are not limiting since claim 1 does positively recite the photolytic material. Further, Tai and Shimizu disclose ozonated water concentrations utilized for resist removal within the desired range. Applicant argues that the range is not merely optimization because the references do not expressly disclose the reaction. This is not persuasive, because such a reaction between ozone water and UV light in the specified wavelength is a well-known reaction to one of ordinary skill in the art. If applicant's position is that such a reaction does not occur outside of the claimed range, then such an argument should be clearly made of the record. The remaining portion of the argument is directed towards the reaction mechanism which has already been addressed in the response to the arguments of claim 1.
Claims 8-10 & 29-31
Applicant again alleges that the limitations to the photolytic material are required. This is incorrect. Claim 1 does not positively recite the photolytic material. The references utilized against the claims are directed towards removal of a resist via ozone (e.g., gas or dual fluid) and further indicates concentrations and the advantage of utilizing gas to remove a difficult resist with a high removal rate. Thus, the references would suggest to a skilled artisan to implement such features to Han with the reasonable expectation that the benefits would also be applied.
Regarding applicant's argument directed towards routine optimization. The rejection does not specify optimizing the concentration but rather using a known concentration that has achieved success prior. The remaining portion of the argument is directed towards the reaction mechanism which has already been addressed in the response to the arguments of claim 1.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Claims 11-12 & 32
Applicant argues that the wavelength ranges are independent with their respective system and not combinable. This is not persuasive. The references utilized teach UV light ranges utilized for producing radicals for removal of resists. Further, they are also utilized for radical generation in ozone solutions (Rahmathullah [0155], Nishigashi [0006 & 0035], Cheng [0022 & 0040]). Thus, a skilled artisan would be led to reasonably believe that such ranges for UV radiation are also known for success and would find it obvious to utilize such ranges to achieve such success. The remaining portion of the argument is directed towards the reaction mechanism which has already been addressed in the response to the arguments of claim 1.
Claims 13-14 & 33
Applicant argues that a laser of approximately 10 watts does not read on the limitations of 1-30 watts. This is not persuasive, because approximately 10 watts is within the specified range it reads on the limitation.
Elliot is directed to photoresist removal, which can include utilizing ozone [0062 & 0064]. Further, Elliot also indicates that the laser can operate in the UV range. Thus, a skilled artisan would reasonably believe that the approximately 10 watt laser can function as a UV source to produce the radicals desired by Han. Applicants argument directed towards result effective variable is not persuasive, because said rationale is not utilized. It is also noted that, at the very least, Elliot indicates that UV light can be produced with an output of 10 watts. The remaining portion of the argument is directed towards the reaction mechanism which has already been addressed in the response to the arguments of claim 1.
Claims 15 & 34
Applicants argument is not persuasive because the apparatus of Han would be reasonably expected to be capable of operating even should a different light source be utilized, so long as the light source is capable of supplying a UV wavelength within the desired range to produce radicals. The substitution of one light source for another would be reasonably within the purview of a skilled artisan, and any minor tweaks required to obtain such a substitution are mundane and within the technical skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. The remaining portion of the argument is directed towards the reaction mechanism which has already been addressed in the response to the arguments of claim 1.
Claims 16-17 35-36 38
Applicants argument is not persuasive because the apparatus of Han would be reasonably expected to be capable of operating even should a different light source be utilized, so long as the light source is capable of supplying a UV wavelength within the desired range to produce radicals. The substitution of one light source for another would be reasonably within the purview of a skilled artisan. The remaining portion of the argument is directed towards the reaction mechanism which has already been addressed in the response to the arguments of claim 1.
Claims 18 & 37
Applicants argument is not persuasive because the apparatus of Han would be reasonably expected to be capable of operating even should a different light source be utilized, so long as the light source is capable of supplying a UV wavelength within the desired range to produce radicals. The substitution of one light source for another would be reasonably within the purview of a skilled artisan. The listing of the improved brightness is not the reason for the modification but rather as associated benefit of utilizing a fiber laser. The remaining portion of the argument is directed towards the reaction mechanism which has already been addressed in the response to the arguments of claim 1.
Claims 19
Applicant argues that the processing head cannot read on a scan head because it requires selective directing of the optical radiation. This argument is not persuasive because the processing head can be selectively moved in order to selectively direct the optical radiation. Applicants second argument is that scan head is not a simple relocation of a radiation source. This is also not found persuasive because the references utilized showcase that the provision of a scan head having a radiation source is a known alternative structure to providing the scan head as an integrated portion. The references would thus indicate that reasonable success is provided in either configuration. The remaining portion of the argument is directed towards the reaction mechanism which has already been addressed in the response to the arguments of claim 1.
Claims 20 & 39
Applicant again alleges that the limitations to the photolytic material are required. This is incorrect. Claim 1 does not positively recite the photolytic material. The remaining portion of the argument is directed towards the reaction mechanism which has already been addressed in the response to the arguments of claim 1.
Claims 24
Applicant argues that Terada does not teach or suggest the body receiver, because a transparent portion does not read on such a limitation. This is not found persuasive. The claim only requires that the dispenser body have a receiver body through which optical radiation can propagate. The transparent portion performs such a function and is merely an alternative configuration utilized when providing an optical source at a different location when compared to an integrated optical source. Terada indicates to one of ordinary skill in the art that the configurations for the location of the optical source are alternatives. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to use one alternative configuration in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success. The remaining portion of the argument is directed towards the reaction mechanism which has already been addressed in the response to the arguments of claim 1.
Claims 25
Applicants argument is that Cates does not disclose a body receiver with the optical radiation source positioned within the receiver. This is not persuasive because Cates showcases such a structure. The Cates references appears to showcase that such a structure is known for allowing propagation of light from a source therethrough. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would recognize that such a construction represent another known structural configuration for allowing a light source to be located with a dispenser body. Applicants argument that a modification is not a mere change in shape is also not persuasive because the claim provides no structural features or positioning regarding the points argued by applicant. Absent any other features or considerations required by the claim, a skilled artisan would recognize such a feature as a mere change in shape of the dispenser body. The remaining portion of the argument is directed towards the reaction mechanism which has already been addressed in the response to the arguments of claim 1.
Claims 41
Applicants argument to claim 41 is not found persuasive because applicant is individually attacking each reference. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The remaining portion of the argument is directed towards the reaction mechanism which has already been addressed in the response to the arguments of claim 1.
Claims 1, 20-21, & 39-40
Applicants argument is not persuasive because the photolytic material is not a required limitation of the claim, thus all limitations attributed to reactions of said material are not required by the claim. Since the prior art contains all relevant structure to perform such a reaction when such a photolytic material is provided it reads on the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that Cheon does not teach the reaction mechanism, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Further, the material is supplied on the wafer when the UV light is supplied. Accordingly, the reaction of radical production occurs on the wafer surface due to the optical radiation.
Specifically, Cheon indicates that a specific wavelength [0046] is utilized with ozone water (see reaction formulas). A skilled artisan understands that when UV light of the specified wavelength reacts with ozone water, hydroxyl radicals are created through photolysis. Further, a skilled artisan also understands that such hydroxyl radicals reacts with ozone to form hydroperoxyl radicals.
The remaining arguments towards the rest of claims in view of the rejection utilizing Cheon as the primary reference are the same in thrust as those to Han above. Thus, the response to said arguments are also similar that addressed above and will not be restated here.
The thrust of applicants arguments are based on persuasive arguments, such as impermissible hindsight, no teachings to combine, intended use, features which are not claimed, and attacking of references individually.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). As iterated and expounded upon above, there exists some reasons for combination.
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not positively recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 21, & 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han (US20200009621A1).
As to claim 1, Han discloses a light-enhanced wafer processing system comprising: a processing body (ref 1200) having a rotatable chuck (ref 1320) configured to support and selectively rotate at least one wafer [0061 & 0068]; a processing head (ref 1400) in communication with a source of photolytic material (ref 1452), the processing head configured to selectively flow the photolytic material onto a surface of the wafer (e.g., see Fig.9); an optical radiation source (ref 1460) configured to provide optical radiation to at least a portion of the wafer having the photolytic material applied thereto, the optical radiation configured to result in formation of optically-induced radicals having enhanced reactivity (abstract & [0075]) with the photolytic material on the wafer, wherein the processing head is movable in relation to the rotatable chuck (see Figs.5 & 9 also [0071 & 0083]) such that the processing head is selectively positioned proximate to the wafer and selectively retract vertically and distally from the wafer (see Figs.5 & 9 in conjunction with [0071] indicating raised and lowered).
As to claim 21, Han discloses a light-enhanced wafer processing system comprising: a processing body (ref 1200) having a rotatable chuck (ref 1320) configured to support and selectively rotate at least one wafer [0061 & 0068]; a processing head (ref 1400) having a dispenser body (ref 1410) in communication with a source of photolytic material (ref 1452), the dispenser body configured to selectively flow the photolytic material onto a surface of the wafer (e.g., see Fig.9); an optical radiation source (ref 1460) configured to provide optical radiation to at least a portion of the wafer having the photolytic material applied thereto, the optical radiation configured to result in formation of optically-induced radicals having enhanced reactivity (abstract & [0075]) with the photolytic material on the wafer, wherein the processing head is movable in relation to the rotatable chuck (see Figs.5 & 9 also [0071 & 0083]) such that the processing head is selectively positioned proximate to the wafer and selectively retract vertically and distally from the wafer (see Figs.5 & 9 in conjunction with [0071] indicating raised and lowered).
As to claim 40, Han discloses a light-enhanced wafer processing system comprising: a rotatable chuck (ref 1320) configured to support and selectively rotate at least one wafer [0061 & 0068]; a dispenser body (ref 1400 including ref 1410) configured to selectively flow the photolytic material (e.g., material from ref 1450) onto a surface of the wafer (e.g., see Fig.9); an optical radiation source (ref 1460) coupled to the dispenser body, the optical radiation source configured to provide optical radiation to at least a portion of the wafer having the photolytic material applied thereto, the optical radiation configured to result in formation of optically-induced radicals having enhanced reactivity (abstract & [0075]) with the photolytic material on the wafer, wherein the dispenser body and the optical radiation source are selectively positioned proximate to the wafer and selectively retract vertically and distally from the wafer (see Figs.5 & 9 in conjunction with [0071] indicating raised and lowered also [0083] stating swing together).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 & 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Funabashi (WO2020153168A1).
As to claims 4 & 26, Han teaches the system of claim 1 & 21, but does not disclose the flow of material being turbulent. However, such a feature would be obvious in view of Funabashi.
Funabashi discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus utilizing a photolytic material (abstract), wherein turbulent fluid at the substrate increases the amount ozone reaching the substrate and improves removal rate of a resist film [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han provide the material with a turbulent flow in order to improve the removal rate of a resist film (Funabashi [0044]). A skilled artisan recognizes that Han envisages the use of the apparatus for removal photoresist films as well (Han [0006 & 0061]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Nelson (US20030042631A1) and Kim (KR100621788B1).
As to claim 5, Han teaches the system of claim 1, but does not disclose the flow of material being laminar. However, such a feature would be obvious in view of Nelson and Kim.
Kim discloses an art related wafer processing apparatus (abstract), wherein the use of laminar flow improves uniformity of wafer processing as well as accuracy and precision (lines 457-486 & 526-532)
Nelson discloses a manner of dissolving ozone gas into a liquid (abstract) for the treatment of wafers [0003-0004] wherein it is disclosed that flow of the fluid should be provided under laminar conditions in order to diffuse more easily and maximize the amount of ozone in the fluid [0056 & 0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han to create laminar flow of the photolytic material onto the surface of the wafer in order to maximize the amount of ozone in the fluid and allow for better diffusion (Nelson [0056 & 0060]) while also improving uniformity, precision and accuracy (Kim lines 457-486 & 526-532).
Claim(s) 6 & 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Kwon (US20200075355A1).
As to claims 6 and 27, Han teaches the system of claims 1 & 21, wherein the photolytic material comprises ozonated deionized water [0022 & 0029]. Assuming arguendo that Han does not explicitly indicate that the ozone is utilized with deionized water, such a feature is also well-known in the art, as seen Kwon.
Kwon discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein ozonated deionized water is known to be utilized for the removal of a resist and organic residue on the substrate [0088 & 0093].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han to utilize ozonated deionized water for the removal of the resist, as such is known in the art (Kwon [0088 & 0093]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known type of water for and ozone solution when one is not explicitly disclosed.
Claim(s) 7 & 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Kwon (US20200075355A1) as applied to claims 6 and 27 above, and further in view of Tai (US20040040934A1) and Shimizu (US6559064B1).
As to claims 7 and 28, Modified Han teaches the system of claims 6 and 27, but does not disclose the concentration of the ozonated deionized water. However, such a concentration is well-known in the art for resist removal as seen by Tai and Shimizu. A skilled artisan recognizes that Han envisages the use of the apparatus for removal photoresist films as well (Han [0006 & 0061]).
Tai discloses an art related substrate processing method (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize ozonated DI water with a concentration of 60-115 ppm in order to remove a photoresist [0025].
Shimizu discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known that an ozonated water concentration is 100 ppm for the removal of a photoresist (Col.5 lines 35-45 Col.6 lines 20-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han to utilize ozonated deionized water with a concentration between the range of 60 and 115 ppm, as such is known in the art for the removal of a resist (Tai [0025] & Shimizu (Col.5 lines 35-45 Col.6 lines 20-30). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known concentration of ozonated deionized water for the removal of a resist when one is not explicitly disclosed. It is further noted that the photolytic material is not positively recited. Thus, limitations drawn to the photolytic material are also not positively recited.
Claim(s) 8-10 & 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Takahashi (US20170125240A1), Kuzomoto (US6616773B1), and Funabashi (WO2020153168A1).
As to claims 8-10 and 29-31, Han teaches the system of claims 1 and 21, but does not disclose use of ozone gas explicitly. However, use of ozone gas for resist removal operations is known in the art, as seen by Takahashi , Kuzomoto, and Funabashi.
Takahashi discloses an art related substrate processing method for the removal of a resist (abstract), wherein it is disclosed that ozone gas with a concentration of 350g/m3 or 30 g/m3 is utilized to effectively remove a resist from a wafer [0045 & 0055]. Accordingly, Takahashi indicates the usage of a combined ultrapure water (i.e., deionized) and ozone gas. A skilled artisan understands that the ozone presence within the water would also form at least a small amount of ozonated deionized water. Takahashi also suggests that utilizing the known concentration of ozone gas for the removal of a resist allows for the removal of a difficult to remove resist under mild conditions (abstract & [0006]).
Kuzomoto discloses an art related substrate processing method for the removal of a resist (abstract & Col.1 lines 5-10), wherein it is known to utilize wet ozone gas having a concentration of 170 or 200 g/m3 in order to remove a photoresist (Col.10 lines 55-65, Col.12 lines 1-25 line 60 to Col.13 line 25 & Col.14 lines 50-65). The wet ozone gas is produced using ultrapure water (Col.2 lines 15-20, ultrapure water is understood to be deionized). Thus, the usage of wet ozone gas also provides at least some amount (even if infinitesimally small) of ozonated water.
Funabashi discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus utilizing a photolytic material (abstract), wherein the use of two phase gas liquid ozone gas and ozone water us utilized to gradually remove the resist allow for a high removal rate [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han to utilize ozone gas in combination with the ozone water for improved resist removal rate (Funabashi [0044]). A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to utilize ozone gas concentrations known for success with resist removal, including 30, 170, 200, or 350 g/m3 as is known in the art (Takahashi [0045 & 0055] also Kuzomoto Col.10 lines 55-65, Col.12 lines 1-25 line 60 to Col.13 line 25 & Col.14 lines 50-65). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known ozone concentration when one is not explicitly disclosed. A skilled artisan recognizes that Han envisages the use of the apparatus for removal photoresist films as well (Han [0006 & 0061]). It is further noted that the photolytic material is not positively recited. Thus, limitations drawn to the photolytic material are also not positively recited.
Claim(s) 11-12 & 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Rahmathullah (US20210106935A1), Nishiguchi (US20050191864A1), and Chang (US20160129484A1).
As to claims 11-12 & 32, Han teaches the system of claims 1 and 21, wherein the UV range can be from 185-254 nm [0076], thereby including the range from 250-275 nm. Assuming arguendo that the range disclosed by Han is not sufficiently close to 250-275nm, such ranges for ultraviolet radiation is known in the art as seen by Rahmathullah, Nishiguchi, and Chang.
Rahmathullah discloses manner of treating substrates utilizing UV radiation (abstract), wherein the range of UV wavelength for form radicals is 210-280 nm, such as 254 nm [0157 0169].
Nishiguchi discloses an art related ozone treatment usable for semiconductor photoresists [0002], wherein UV radiation in the range of 200-300 nm produces radicals [0082-0083], and optimally in the range of 250 nm [0104].
Chang discloses an art related semiconductor resist removing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize UV radiation in the range of 245-260 nm in order to remove a resist layer [0023 & 0041-0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han to utilize UV radiation in a range from 200-300 nm, and more specifically in the vicinity of 250 nm, such as 254nm in order to produce radicals for the removal of a wafer resist (Rahmathullah [0157 & 0169], Nishiguchi [0082-0083 & 0104], and Chang [0023 & 0041-0042]). A skilled artisan recognizes that Han envisages the use of the apparatus for removal photoresist films as well (Han [0006 & 0061]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known UV radiation range in place of another when alternative range is known for success in producing desired radicals for resist removal.
Claim(s) 13-14 & 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Elliott (US20110061679A1).
As to claims 13-14 & 33, Han teaches the system of claims 1 and 21, but does not disclose the power of the ultraviolet radiation source. However, the use of a 10 watt radiation source which can operate in the UV range is known in the art, as seen by Elliott.
Elliot discloses an art related method for removing resists from wafers (abstract), wherein it is known that a laser which can operate in the range of 150-580nm (includes UV radiation) can be a 10 watt solid state laser [0058].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han to utilize a 10W laser which can operate in the UV range as it is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known radiation source in place of another when both sources are capable of producing UV radiation.
Claim(s) 15 & 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Zhang (US20150158116A1) and Chaplick (US20070224768A1).
As to claims 15 & 34, Han teaches the system of claims 1 and 21, wherein a UV radiation source is utilized (abstract) but does not disclose the UV source being a DPSS laser operating at between 250-275nm. However, the use of a DPSS laser for providing UV radiation is known in the art, as seen by Zhang and Chaplick.
Zhang discloses an art related apparatus for processing a substrate (abstract & [0008-0011], wherein a diode pumped solid state laser operating at 6 watts can produce a wavelength of 266 nm [0086-0087].
Chaplick discloses an art related wafer processing apparatus (abstract & [0002]), wherein a solid state diode pumped laser is utilized to remove a resist by utilizing a wavelength 266nm [0034 & 0085] in conjunction with ozone [0092].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han to utilize a 266 nm DPSS laser for the removal of the resist, as such a radiation source is known in the art (Chaplick 0034 & 0085] & Zhang [0086-0087]). A skilled artisan recognizes that Han envisages the use of the apparatus for removal photoresist films as well (Han [0006 & 0061]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known type of ultraviolet radiation source in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 16-17, 35-36, & 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Yonetani (JP2004342886A).
As to claims 16-17 & 35-36, Han teaches the system of claims 1 and 21, wherein a UV radiation source is utilized (abstract) but does not disclose the UV source being a laser diode or LED operating at between 250-275nm. However, the use of laser diodes and LEDs for UV radiation is known in the art, as seen by Yonetani.
Yonetani discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein wavelength of 254 nm promote radical produce from ozone [0075-0076]. Yonetani further indicates that known UV radiation sources for producing such a wavelength include a semiconductor laser (i.e., laser diode) or an LED among other options [0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han to utilize a 254 nm semiconductor laser or LED for improved removal of the resist (Yonetani [0075-0076]). A skilled artisan recognizes that Han envisages the use of the apparatus for removal photoresist films as well (Han [0006 & 0061]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known type of ultraviolet radiation source in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 18 & 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Moffatt (US20140263180A1) and Chaplick (US20070224768A1).
As to claims 18 & 37, Han teaches the system of claims 1 and 21, wherein a UV radiation source is utilized (abstract) but does not disclose the UV source being a fiber laser operating at between 250-275nm. However, the use of a fiber laser for UV radiation is known in the art, as seen by Moffat and Chaplick.
Moffat discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is disclosed that UV radiation may be provided at 266 nm [0019] utilizing radiation sources, such as fiber lasers, solid state laser, laser diodes among others [0017]. Moffat also indicates that fiber lasers are advantageous for their improved brightness [0018].
Chaplick discloses an art related wafer processing apparatus (abstract & [0002]), wherein a solid state diode pumped laser is utilized to remove a resist by utilizing a wavelength 266nm [0034 & 0085] in conjunction with ozone [0092].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han to utilize a 266 nm fiber laser for the UV radiation source to remove the resist as it is a known UV radiation source in the art and would provide improved brightness (Moffat [0018]). Since DPSS lasers are known to be utilized with ozone, and fiber lasers a known alternative to a DPSS laser, a skilled artisan would also find the use of fiber laser to be an obvious variant of a UV radiation source. A skilled artisan recognizes that Han envisages the use of the apparatus for removal photoresist films as well (Han [0006 & 0061]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known type of ultraviolet radiation source in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Elliott (US20110061679A1), Chaplick (US20070224768A1), and Terada (US20040197433A1).
As to claim 19, Han teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the moveable processing head having the radiation source can read on a scan head. However, assuming arguendo that a scan head and the processing head are distinct and separate elements, the following alternative rejection is provided. Although Han does not disclose the presence of a scan head, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that such a feature is merely an alternative configuration when compared to the configuration of Han where the radiation source is provided on the dispenser assembly, as seen by Elliott, Chaplick, and Terada.
Elliot discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein it can be seen that a scan head (Fig.7 ref 715) can be utilized in order to provide radiation to a wafer [0084-0085] for the removal of a resist (abstract).
Chaplick discloses an art related wafer processing apparatus (abstract & [0002]), wherein a scan head can be utilized in order to supply radiation to a wafer surface [0091-0093] in order to remove a resist [0085].
Terada discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus for removing a film (abstract), wherein it is shown that a dispenser body (Fig.6 ref 85) can be separate from a radiation source (Fig.5 ref 63) for supplying radiation to a wafer to remove a resist [0004 & 01320]. Thus, Terada showcases that an alternative form for a dispensing assembly for the removal of a film on a wafer can be provided with a radiation source disposed separately from the dispensing assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han to provide the radiation source as a separate scan head, as such a feature is known in the art (Elliott Fig.7, Chaplick Fig.7A, and Terada Figs.5-6) for the supplying of radiation to a wafer surface. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would recognize the provision of a scan head to be a mere alternative to the providing of a radiation source and dispenser on the same head. A skilled artisan recognizes that Han envisages the use of the apparatus for removal photoresist films as well (Han [0006 & 0061]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known structural configuration for a dispensing assembly utilized in film removal of a substrate in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1).
As to claims 20 & 39, Han teaches the system of claims 1 & 21 respectively, wherein the photolytic material is not positively recited. Thus, limitations drawn to the photolytic material are also not positively recited. Further, a skilled artisan recognizes that Han envisages the use of the apparatus for removal photoresist films as well (Han [0006 & 0061]).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Terada (US20040197433A1).
As to claim 24, Han teaches the system of claim 21, but does not disclose the presence of a body receiver through which optical radiation propagates. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Terada.
Terada discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus for removing a film (abstract), wherein it is shown that a dispenser body (Fig.6 ref 85) having a receiver body (Fig.6 ref 65) is formed on the dispenser body and configured to allow optical radiation (Fig.6 ref 19) to propagate therethrough [0119]. Thus, Terada showcases that an alternative form for a dispensing assembly for the removal of a film on a wafer can be provided with a radiation source disposed separately from the dispensing assembly while providing a transparent portion on the dispensing assembly for the passage of optical radiation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han to provide the dispenser assembly with a transparent portion to allow for radiation propagation therethrough, as such appears to be a known alternative to the formation of a radiation source on the dispensing assembly (see Terada e.g., Fig.6). A skilled artisan recognizes that Han envisages the use of the apparatus for removal photoresist films as well (Han [0006 & 0061]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known structural configuration for a dispensing assembly utilized in film removal of a substrate in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Cates (US5328517A).
As to claim 25, Han teaches the system of claim 21, but does not disclose having a body receiver formed within the dispenser body and having the optical radiation source positioned therein. However, the provision of the radiation source in the receiver body merely represents a change in the shape of the dispenser body/body receiver that a skilled artisan would find obvious in view of Cates.
Cates discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract) and showcases a dispenser body (all of Fig.1 but for refs 21/22/24/26/28/30/42/45/97/98; better seen by Fig.12) having a body receiver (Fig.1 ref 12) formed therein and having the optical radiation source (Fig.1 ref 14) positioned within the receiver body. Thus, Cates showcases an alternative configuration for the provision of a radiation source located within a receiving element of a dispensing assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han to provide the radiation source within a body receiver, as such is merely a known alternative structural configuration for the placement of the radiation source. Such a modification would merely amount to a slight change in shape, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not anticipate any unexpected results with such a variation in shape (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Boyers (US20050178401A1) and Chua (US20140230860A1).
As to claim 41, Modified Han teaches system of claim 40, but does not explicitly showcase the presence of a lid body. Modified Han also does not disclose the dispenser body and radiation source coupled to said lid body such that they can be positioned proximate the wafer and retracted to the lid body. However, such the use of a lid for a processing chamber which utilizes ozone is known in the art, as seen by Boyers. Further, the mounting of an arm to a lid is also known in the art, as seen by Chua.
Boyers discloses an art related apparatus for treatment of a wafer utilizing ozone (abstract), wherein it is known that a processing module (ref 50) for treatment of a wafer is provided with a lid in order to contain any ozone gas present [0161]. Boyers also showcases that such lid is provided with a nozzle (see Figs.5A-6)
Chua discloses an art related treatment apparatus for a semiconductor wafer (see abstract & [0002]), wherein it is shown that a process chamber (e.g., see Fig.13 ref 1302) can be provided with a cover (ref 1304) and said cover is provided with a moveable arm having nozzles (see Figs.3, 5-6, 8, & 13 & [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han to provide a lid body for the chamber in order to contain any ozone gas that may be present (Boyers [0161]). Further, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to provide the arm, which carries the dispenser body and radiation source, to the lid as such is a known location for such an arm (Chua Figs. 3, 5-6, 8, & 13 & [0057]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known mounting location for an arm which carries a nozzle and optical radiation source in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success. Such a modification would allow for positioning of the nozzle and radiation source proximate the wafer and retract such elements to the lid body.
Claim(s) 1, 21, & 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1).
As to claims 1, 20-21, & 39-40, Cheon discloses an apparatus (abstract) for processing a wafer [0031] comprising: a processing body (Fig.1A ref 100) having a rotatable chuck (Fig.1A ref 110) configured to support and selectively rotate at least one wafer [0031]; at least one processing head (Fig.1A combination of refs 200, 300, 400 & 500) having a dispenser body (Fig.1A combination of refs 200, 300, & 500) in communication with at least one source of photolytic material (see Fig.2B & [0038-0039] and configured to selectively flow the photolytic material onto a surface of the wafer (see e.g., Figs5A-5B & 7); an optical radiation source (Fig.1A ref 300) configured to provide optical radiation to at least of a portion of the wafer having the at least one photolytic material applied thereto (Figs.4, 5B-5C, & 7), the optical radiation is configured to result in the formation of optically-induced radicals having enhanced reactivity with at the least one photolytic material applied to the wafer [0068-0069]; the processing head is movable in relation to the rotatable chuck (Figs.1B-1C & [0035]); the processing head can be position proximate to the wafer and retracted distally from the wafer (Figs.1B-1C & [0035] see rotary movement of the arm, alternatively one position proximate to the center of the wafer and another distant). Thus, the optically induced radicals have enhanced reactivity with the photolytic material applied to the wafer [0058 & 0068]. Cheon does not disclose the retraction in a vertical direction; however, such a feature would be obvious in view of Han.
Han discloses an art related substrate processing unit (abstract) via ozone [0022 & 0029] and UV light to provide radicals [0013]. Han also indicates that a processing element includes an arm (ref 1420) having both a UV light (ref 1460) and a (nozzle ref 1410). The arm can be lifted and lowered as well as swung [0071] to allow for movement between standby positions and processing positions [0072].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to allow the arm to be raised and lowered thereby enabling the processing head to be moved between standby and processing positions (Han [0071-0072]), as is known in the art. A skilled artisan recognizes that by allowing the processing head to be placed in a standby position would prevent the processing head from getting in the way until actually required for use, and allow for more space to receive and transfer the substrate wafer.
Claim(s) 4 & 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) as applied to claims 1 & 21 above, and further in view of Funabashi (WO2020153168A1).
As to claims 4 & 26, Cheon teaches the system of claim 1 & 21, but does not disclose the flow of material being turbulent. However, such a feature would be obvious in view of Funabashi.
Funabashi discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus utilizing a photolytic material (abstract), wherein turbulent fluid at the substrate increases the amount ozone reaching the substrate and improves removal rate of a resist film [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon provide the material with a turbulent flow in order to improve the removal rate of a resist film (Funabashi [0044]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nelson (US20030042631A1) and Kim (KR100621788B1).
As to claim 5, Cheon teaches the system of claim 1, but does not disclose the flow of material being laminar. However, such a feature would be obvious in view of Nelson and Kim.
Kim discloses an art related wafer processing apparatus (abstract), wherein the use of laminar flow improves uniformity of wafer processing as well as accuracy and precision (lines 457-486 & 526-532)
Nelson discloses a manner of dissolving ozone gas into a liquid (abstract) for the treatment of wafers [0003-0004] wherein it is disclosed that flow of the fluid should be provided under laminar conditions in order to diffuse more easily and maximize the amount of ozone in the fluid [0056 & 0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to create laminar flow of the photolytic material onto the surface of the wafer in order to maximize the amount of ozone in the fluid and allow for better diffusion (Nelson [0056 & 0060]) while also improving uniformity, precision and accuracy (Kim lines 457-486 & 526-532).
Claim(s) 6 & 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) as applied to claims 1 & 21 above, and further in view of Kwon (US20200075355A1).
As to claims 6 and 27, Cheon teaches the system of claims 1 & 21, wherein the photolytic material comprises ozonated deionized water [0038 & 0072]. Assuming arguendo that Cheon does not explicitly indicate that the ozone is utilized with deionized water, such a feature is also well-known in the art, as seen Kwon.
Kwon discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein ozonated deionized water is known to be utilized for the removal of a resist and organic residue on the substrate [0088 & 0093].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to utilize ozonated deionized water for the removal of the resist, as such is known in the art (Kwon [0088 & 0093]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known type of water for and ozone solution when one is not explicitly disclosed.
Claim(s) 7 & 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) and Kwon (US20200075355A1) as applied to claims 6 and 27 above, and further in view of Tai (US20040040934A1) and Shimizu (US6559064B1).
As to claims 7 and 28, Modified Cheon teaches the system of claims 6 and 27, but does not disclose the concentration of the ozonated deionized water. However, such a concentration is well-known in the art for resist removal as seen by Tai and Shimizu.
Tai discloses an art related substrate processing method (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize ozonated DI water with a concentration of 60-115 ppm in order to remove a photoresist [0025].
Shimizu discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known that an ozonated water concentration is 100 ppm for the removal of a photoresist (Col.5 lines 35-45 Col.6 lines 20-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to utilize ozonated deionized water with a concentration between the range of 60 and 115 ppm, as such is known in the art for the removal of a resist (Tai [0025] & Shimizu (Col.5 lines 35-45 Col.6 lines 20-30). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known concentration of ozonated deionized water for the removal of a resist when one is not explicitly disclosed. It is further noted that the photolytic material is not positively recited. Thus, limitations drawn to the photolytic material are also not positively recited.
Claim(s) 8-10 & 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) as applied to claims 1 & 21 above, and further in view of Takahashi (US20170125240A1), Kuzomoto (US6616773B1), and Funabashi (WO2020153168A1).
As to claims 8-10 and 29-31, Cheon teaches the system of claims 1 and 21, but does not disclose use of ozone gas explicitly. However, use of ozone gas for resist removal operations is known in the art, as seen by Takahashi , Kuzomoto, and Funabashi.
Takahashi discloses an art related substrate processing method for the removal of a resist (abstract), wherein it is disclosed that ozone gas with a concentration of 350g/m3 or 30 g/m3 is utilized to effectively remove a resist from a wafer [0045 & 0055]. Accordingly, Takahashi indicates the usage of a combined ultrapure water (i.e., deionized) and ozone gas. A skilled artisan understands that the ozone presence within the water would also form at least a small amount of ozonated deionized water. Takahashi also suggests that utilizing the known concentration of ozone gas for the removal of a resist allows for the removal of a difficult to remove resist under mild conditions (abstract & [0006]).
Kuzomoto discloses an art related substrate processing method for the removal of a resist (abstract & Col.1 lines 5-10), wherein it is known to utilize wet ozone gas having a concentration of 170 or 200 g/m3 in order to remove a photoresist (Col.10 lines 55-65, Col.12 lines 1-25 line 60 to Col.13 line 25 & Col.14 lines 50-65). The wet ozone gas is produced using ultrapure water (Col.2 lines 15-20, ultrapure water is understood to be deionized). Thus, the usage of wet ozone gas also provides at least some amount (even if infinitesimally small) of ozonated water.
Funabashi discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus utilizing a photolytic material (abstract), wherein the use of two phase gas liquid ozone gas and ozone water us utilized to gradually remove the resist allow for a high removal rate [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to utilize ozone gas in combination with the ozone water for improved resist removal rate (Funabashi [0044]). A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to utilize ozone gas concentrations known for success with resist removal, including 30, 170, 200, or 350 g/m3 as is known in the art (Takahashi [0045 & 0055] also Kuzomoto Col.10 lines 55-65, Col.12 lines 1-25 line 60 to Col.13 line 25 & Col.14 lines 50-65). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known ozone concentration when one is not explicitly disclosed. It is further noted that the photolytic material is not positively recited. Thus, limitations drawn to the photolytic material are also not positively recited.
Claim(s) 11-12 & 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) as applied to claims 1 & 21 above, and further in view of Rahmathullah (US20210106935A1), Nishiguchi (US20050191864A1), and Chang (US20160129484A1).
As to claims 11-12 & 32, Cheon teaches the system of claims 1 and 21, wherein the UV range can be from 10-280 nm [0046], thereby including the range from 250-275 nm. Assuming arguendo that the range disclosed by Cheon is not sufficiently close to 250-275nm, such ranges for ultraviolet radiation is known in the art as seen by Rahmathullah, Nishiguchi, and Chang.
Rahmathullah discloses manner of treating substrates utilizing UV radiation (abstract), wherein the range of UV wavelength for form radicals is 210-280 nm, such as 254 nm [0157 0169].
Nishiguchi discloses an art related ozone treatment usable for semiconductor photoresists [0002], wherein UV radiation in the range of 200-300 nm produces radicals [0082-0083], and optimally in the range of 250 nm [0104].
Chang discloses an art related semiconductor resist removing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize UV radiation in the range of 245-260 nm in order to remove a resist layer [0023 & 0041-0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to utilize UV radiation in a range from 200-300 nm, and more specifically in the vicinity of 250 nm, such as 254nm in order to produce radicals for the removal of a wafer resist (Rahmathullah [0157 & 0169], Nishiguchi [0082-0083 & 0104], and Chang [0023 & 0041-0042]), as desired by Cheon. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known UV radiation range in place of another when alternative range is known for success in producing desired radicals for resist removal.
Claim(s) 13-14 & 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) as applied to claims 1 & 21 above, and further in view of Elliott (US20110061679A1).
As to claims 13-14 & 33, Cheon teaches the system of claims 1 and 21, but does not disclose the power of the ultraviolet radiation source. However, the use of a 10 watt radiation source which can operate in the UV range is known in the art, as seen by Elliott.
Elliot discloses an art related method for removing resists from wafers (abstract), wherein it is known that a laser which can operate in the range of 150-580nm (includes UV radiation) can be a 10 watt solid state laser [0058].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to utilize a 10W laser which can operate in the UV range as it is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known radiation source in place of another when both sources are capable of producing UV radiation.
Claim(s) 15 & 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) as applied to claims 1 & 21 above, and further in view of Zhang (US20150158116A1) and Chaplick (US20070224768A1).
As to claims 15 & 34, Cheon teaches the system of claims 1 and 21, wherein a UV radiation source is utilized (abstract) but does not disclose the UV source being a DPSS laser operating at between 250-275nm. However, Cheon does indicate a desire to operate below 280nm [0046]. Further, the use of a DPSS laser for providing UV radiation is known in the art, as seen by Zhang and Chaplick.
Zhang discloses an art related apparatus for processing a substrate (abstract & [0008-0011], wherein a diode pumped solid state laser operating at 6 watts can produce a wavelength of 266 nm [0086-0087].
Chaplick discloses an art related wafer processing apparatus (abstract & [0002]), wherein a solid state diode pumped laser is utilized to remove a resist by utilizing a wavelength 266nm [0034 & 0085] in conjunction with ozone [0092].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to utilize a 266 nm DPSS laser for the removal of the resist, as such a radiation source is known in the art (Chaplick 0034 & 0085] & Zhang [0086-0087]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known type of ultraviolet radiation source in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 16-17, 35-36, & 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) as applied to claims 1 & 21 above, and further in view of Yonetani (JP2004342886A).
As to claims 16-17 & 35-36, Cheon teaches the system of claims 1 and 21, wherein a UV radiation source is utilized (abstract) but does not disclose the UV source being a laser diode or LED operating at between 250-275nm. However, Cheon does indicate a desire to operate below 280nm [0046]. Further, the use of laser diodes and LEDs for UV radiation is known in the art, as seen by Yonetani.
Yonetani discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein wavelength of 254 nm promote radical produce from ozone [0075-0076]. Yonetani further indicates that known UV radiation sources for producing such a wavelength include a semiconductor laser (i.e., laser diode) or an LED among other options [0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to utilize a 254 nm semiconductor laser or LED for improved removal of the resist (Yonetani [0075-0076]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known type of ultraviolet radiation source in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 18 & 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) as applied to claims 1 & 21 above, and further in view of Moffatt (US20140263180A1) and Chaplick (US20070224768A1).
As to claims 18 & 37, Cheon teaches the system of claims 1 and 21, wherein a UV radiation source is utilized (abstract) but does not disclose the UV source being a fiber laser operating at between 250-275nm. However, Cheon does indicate a desire to operate below 280nm [0046]. Further, the use of a fiber laser for UV radiation is known in the art, as seen by Moffat and Chaplick.
Moffat discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is disclosed that UV radiation may be provided at 266 nm [0019] utilizing radiation sources, such as fiber lasers, solid state laser, laser diodes among others [0017]. Moffat also indicates that fiber lasers are advantageous for their improved brightness [0018].
Chaplick discloses an art related wafer processing apparatus (abstract & [0002]), wherein a solid state diode pumped laser is utilized to remove a resist by utilizing a wavelength 266nm [0034 & 0085] in conjunction with ozone [0092].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to utilize a 266 nm fiber laser for the UV radiation source to remove the resist as it is a known UV radiation source in the art and would provide improved brightness (Moffat [0018]). Since DPSS lasers are known to be utilized with ozone, and fiber lasers a known alternative to a DPSS laser, a skilled artisan would also find the use of fiber laser to be an obvious variant of a UV radiation source. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known type of ultraviolet radiation source in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Elliott (US20110061679A1), Chaplick (US20070224768A1), and Terada (US20040197433A1).
As to claim 19, Cheon teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the moveable processing head having the radiation source can read on a scan head. However, assuming arguendo that a scan head and the processing head are distinct and separate elements, the following alternative rejection is provided. Although Cheon does not disclose the presence of a scan head, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that such a feature is merely an alternative configuration when compared to the configuration of Cheon where the radiation source is provided on the dispenser assembly, as seen by Elliott, Chaplick, and Terada.
Elliot discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein it can be seen that a scan head (Fig.7 ref 715) can be utilized in order to provide radiation to a wafer [0084-0085] for the removal of a resist (abstract).
Chaplick discloses an art related wafer processing apparatus (abstract & [0002]), wherein a scan head can be utilized in order to supply radiation to a wafer surface [0091-0093] in order to remove a resist [0085].
Terada discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus for removing a film (abstract), wherein it is shown that a dispenser body (Fig.6 ref 85) can be separate from a radiation source (Fig.5 ref 63) for supplying radiation to a wafer to remove a resist [0004 & 01320]. Thus, Terada showcases that an alternative form for a dispensing assembly for the removal of a film on a wafer can be provided with a radiation source disposed separately from the dispensing assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to provide the radiation source as a separate scan head, as such a feature is known in the art (Elliott Fig.7, Chaplick Fig.7A, and Terada Figs.5-6) for the supplying of radiation to a wafer surface. Further, Cheon also appears to indicate that a radiation source can be provided separately from a dispensing element (see Fig.8A). Accordingly, a skilled artisan would recognize the provision of a scan head to be a mere alternative to the providing of a radiation source and dispenser on the same head. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known structural configuration for a dispensing assembly utilized in film removal of a substrate in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Terada (US20040197433A1).
As to claim 24, Cheon teaches the system of claim 21, but does not disclose the presence of a body receiver through which optical radiation propagates. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Terada.
Terada discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus for removing a film (abstract), wherein it is shown that a dispenser body (Fig.6 ref 85) having a receiver body (Fig.6 ref 65) is formed on the dispenser body and configured to allow optical radiation (Fig.6 ref 19) to propagate therethrough [0119]. Thus, Terada showcases that an alternative form for a dispensing assembly for the removal of a film on a wafer can be provided with a radiation source disposed separately from the dispensing assembly while providing a transparent portion on the dispensing assembly for the passage of optical radiation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to provide the dispenser assembly with a transparent portion to allow for radiation propagation therethrough, as such appears to be a known alternative to the formation of a radiation source on the dispensing assembly (see Terada e.g., Fig.6). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known structural configuration for a dispensing assembly utilized in film removal of a substrate in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Cates (US5328517A).
As to claim 25, Cheon teaches the system of claim 21, having a body receiver (Fig.1A ref 520) formed within the dispenser body and having the optical radiation source positioned therein (see Fig.1A, 3B-3C, & 5A). Assuming arguendo that the radiation source is not located in the receiver body, but rather below it, the following alternative rejection is provided. The provision of the radiation source in the receiver body merely represents a change in the shape of the dispenser body/body receiver that a skilled artisan would find obvious in view of Cates.
Cates discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract) and showcases a dispenser body (all of Fig.1 but for refs 21/22/24/26/28/30/42/45/97/98; better seen by Fig.12) having a body receiver (Fig.1 ref 12) formed therein and having the optical radiation source (Fig.1 ref 14) positioned within the receiver body. Thus, Cates showcases an alternative configuration for the provision of a radiation source located within a receiving element of a dispensing assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to provide the radiation source within a body receiver, as such is merely a known alternative structural configuration for the placement of the radiation source. Such a modification would merely amount to a slight change in shape, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not anticipate any unexpected results with such a variation in shape (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Boyers (US20050178401A1) and Chua (US20140230860A1).
As to claim 41, Modified Cheon teaches system of claim 40, but does not explicitly showcase the presence of a lid body. Modified Cheon also does not disclose the dispenser body and radiation source coupled to said lid body such that they can be positioned proximate the wafer and retracted to the lid body. However, such the use of a lid for a processing chamber which utilizes ozone is known in the art, as seen by Boyers. Further, the mounting of an arm to a lid is also known in the art, as seen by Chua.
Boyers discloses an art related apparatus for treatment of a wafer utilizing ozone (abstract), wherein it is known that a processing module (ref 50) for treatment of a wafer is provided with a lid in order to contain any ozone gas present [0161]. Boyers also showcases that such lid is provided with a nozzle (see Figs.5A-6)
Chua discloses an art related treatment apparatus for a semiconductor wafer (see abstract & [0002]), wherein it is shown that a process chamber (e.g., see Fig.13 ref 1302) can be provided with a cover (ref 1304) and said cover is provided with a moveable arm having nozzles (see Figs.3, 5-6, 8, & 13 & [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to provide a lid body for the chamber in order to contain any ozone gas that may be present (Boyers [0161]). Further, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to provide the arm, which carries the dispenser body and radiation source, to the lid as such is a known location for such an arm (Chua Figs. 3, 5-6, 8, & 13 & [0057]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known mounting location for an arm which carries a nozzle and optical radiation source in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success. Such a modification would allow for positioning of the nozzle and radiation source proximate the wafer and retract such elements to the lid body.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights